Chapter 11 the Theory of Communicative Action
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Chapter 11 The Theory of Communicative Action 11 The Theory of Communicative Action and Theory of System and Lifeworld in Relational Practice In this chapter I would like to inform our understanding of relational practice and sustainability by taking another set of ideas about communication and behaviour, which is slightly different to the Batesonian pragmatics of human communication used in the last chapter. Here I focus upon the critique of modern welfare-state capitalism to be found in the social theory of Jurgen Habermas and his associated working of behavioural communication. I first describe some key aspects Habermas’ social theory (located within a line of critical theorists from the Frankfurt school following Marx) by introducing two main elements of his theory of communicative action - the theory of system and lifeworld and the theory of knowledge constitutive interests. Having introduced these ideas - in what is again quite a theoretically dense section - I then work with Habermas’ theoretical constructs to engage in further reflection upon business- NGO relations and my own research/practice in the context of the modern welfare-state. More specifically, looking through the conceptual lenses of system and lifeworld, I suggest that perceptions of NGOs as being separate from the steering media of money and power have allowed the sector to engage in change efforts with powerful actors such as business. However, this distance is more perceived than real. As a result private sector engagement, whilst affording solutions to pressing problems, may seriously affect NGO legitimacy. I frame my own research/practice in terms of the system and lifeworld theory. I think the explorations in this chapter demonstrate that the theory of communicative action is a powerful analytical tool in the context of a critical theory for modern welfare-state capitalism. However, I have found that there are also some limitations. In the next chapter (12) I discuss how such theoretical contributions to our understanding of agency and social structure can be made more useful in participatory practice towards creating change for sustainability. 11.1 Critical Theory and Communicative Action Jurgen Habermas is perhaps the most prolific writer of the critical theorists coming from the Frankfurt School in Germany. The loose collection of individuals, which also includes Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer and Lukacs, have philosophical interests that centre around the works Kant, Hegel, Marx and Freud (Bowman, 1996; Craib, 1992). In this sense Habermas can be situated within the tradition of Western Marxism that has a primary concern with explicating link to: http://www.bath.ac.uk/carpp/publications/doc_theses_links/r_shah.html 278 Chapter 11 The Theory of Communicative Action a moral and political philosophy, compared with engaging in a political programme aimed at specifying what is to be done to move to a classless society. As Bowman suggests it is a tradition which has forwarded a form of “Marxism without the proletariat” (1996). The Frankfurt School points us towards the need for emancipation from the system of welfare- state capitalism, with a view that stepwise change and pragmatism will tend to entrench the capitalist system. It thus requires a radical re-orientation in order to free us from self-imposed alienation arising from the capitalist mode of production. According to the school a failure to recognise that this mode is an instrument of our own oppression marks our rationality with a “false consciousness”. However, for Habermas, “though our taken-for-granted views of it must be transformed, rationality can still provide hope for the non-violent construction of better worlds, established through communicative action aimed at mutual understanding and directed towards unforced agreement among people” (cited in Kemmis, 1993:39). Habermas’ theory of communicative action feeds upon attacks against the philosophy of consciousness emanating from the analytic philosophy of language and psychological theory of behaviour. The philosophy of consciousness has been criticised for the way in which it “sees language and action in terms of a relationship between a subject and an object…[which] leaves us [with] instrumental reason (Craib, 1992) and for the reification of the subject. In avoiding the problem of the reification of the subject Habermas “clears the way for a communication concept of rationality” (Habermas, 1987b: 5) where we can “find a place for the subject within acts of communication that construct subjects as well as discourse” (Kemmis, 1993:49). In moving towards this position Habermas seeks to proffer a view of rationality based on the pragmatics of communication. Habermas’ post metaphysical philosophy, then, locates truth in discourse not in the mind of the individual human subject. Kemmis adds that this implies that “truth could only emerge in settings where all assertions are equally open to critical scrutiny, without fear or favour” (2000). By developing a theory of communicative competence, where all assertion are theoretically open to this critical scrutiny, Habermas has sought to form a normative basis for critical theory. His attempts to develop theoretical underpinnings for claims to free speech draw upon the notion that the use of language equates to the following of rules. In developing this theoretical track Habermas suggests that all uncoerced and free communication would allow for positive or negative responses to three “criticizable validity claims”: link to: http://www.bath.ac.uk/carpp/publications/doc_theses_links/r_shah.html 279 Chapter 11 The Theory of Communicative Action “Hearers can contest [an] utterance in three respects: depending on whether it is expanded to a statement of fact, an expression of feeling, or a command. They can call into question its truth, its sincerity, or its legitimacy…these are precisely the three basic modes available to communicative action” (Habermas, 1987b: 26). He suggests, thus, that of any utterance one can ask “is it true (in the sense of accurate)?”, “is it sincerely stated?” and “is it right and morally-appropriate”. He develops the theory of communicative action - action oriented towards mutual understanding and unforced agreement - that accords with these validity claims and forms the theoretical basis for democratic discourse. Habermas has extrapolated Wittgenstein’s rules of language in order to develop the above rules; whereas Wittgenstein considered learning-by-doing as the way to apprehend these rules, Habermas has been criticised for replacing learning-by-doing with the synthesis of a few meta- rules1. There are numerous other sources of criticism of Habermas’ work, particularly from postmodern theorists attacking his attachment to modernist rationality as manifested in his conceptualisations of power and discourse; however, for the moment I shall side-step these and enter, perhaps slightly uncritically, into an exploration of the theory of system and lifeworld. 11.2 Theory of System and Lifeworld Within the theory of communicative action Habermas develops the theory of the lifeworld and system. In trying to specify the relation between knowledge and human activity, he differentiates between communicative action - the use of language oriented towards understanding or action for intersubjective understanding of symbols - and strategic action - the use of language oriented towards producing effects or purposive rational action (Habermas, 1987b). Habermas’ theory of system and lifeworld, like other recent theories of society, seeks to move beyond the fragmentation between theories of social action and theories of social structure. The relationship between social structure and agency has long been used as a matrix for making sense of social change in sociology (Craib, 1992). Giddens (1984) and Archer (1982) (as well as 1 Personal communication Bjorn Gustavsen, January 2001. I am indebted to Bjorn for his thoughts regarding Habermas’ orientation to theory and practice, democratic dialogue and communicative action. I am also grateful to Robin Holt for his comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. link to: http://www.bath.ac.uk/carpp/publications/doc_theses_links/r_shah.html 280 Chapter 11 The Theory of Communicative Action others) have sought to propose a dualism of agency and structure in which micro actions, when taken together, constitute the macro state or structure - a state that then holds forth the space for the further actions. In this way action and structure are said to co-create each other through processes of structuration (Giddens) and morphogenesis (Archer). These theories, then, have been attempts to move away from previous theoretical stances of social action, such as the functionalism of Parsons, which seemed to isolate the agency of the individual from a wider social system and so rendered individual action largely impotent. In doing so they have drawn upon theories of social structure, such as structuralism. Authors such as Barthes, with his wonderfully engaging Mythologies (1972), were among the pioneers who drew upon the emerging field of semiotics. The structuralists used language as a metaphor to propose a view of society as being constituted by individual actions; nevertheless, these early language-oriented theorists still maintained a heavy focus on the constraints of the social structure upon social action (Hawkes, 1977). Most recently postmodernism and post- structuralism have enabled (required?) the adoption of a form of sense making in which social